Radiation Oncology Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
383326362
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Lansing, MI, USA
Phone
5179757628
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$854,508
Expenses
$694,078
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JUSTIN KLAMERUS MD (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JUSTIN KLAMERUS MD (PRESIDENT): $407,810 total reported compensation
  • PATRICIA DEROSE (BOARD MEMBER): $141,246 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The primary exempt purpose is to make radiation oncology service more readily available and to support the educational, research and public service mission of Michigan state university colleges of human medicine and osteopathic medicine, Michigan health corporation, and ingham regional medical center. It also intends to support research and education, including medical students, resident and intern training in cancer diagnosis and treatment as well as promote the health of the public.

What it reported doing in 2016

Provide state-of-the-art radiation therapy to patients in need of care. During fiscal year 2016, 1,383 treatments were performed and 86 consultations were given.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.4%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 96.9%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.8%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.7%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -34.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.5% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -16.2% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.4% of revenue deployed · 96.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 2 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $673K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $408K · 2 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $147K reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2009 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 51 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.